Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R029; No. 09-834; 3/22/11. In an antiretaliation suit under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, which forbids employers "to discharge . . . any employee because
such employee has filed any complaint" alleging a violation of the Act, 29 U. S. C.
§215(a)(3), the scope of statutory term "filed any complaint" includes oral, as well
as written, complaints.
|
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R030; No. 09-1156; 3/22/11. Respondents stated a claim in this securities
fraud action, when they alleged that petitioners violated §10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by failing
to disclose reports of a possible link between the company 's Zicam Cold Remedy and loss
of smell (anosmia), rendering statements made by them misleading.
|
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R031; No. 09-571; 3/29/11. A district attorney's office may not be
held liable under 42 U. S. C. §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors
based on a single violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83.
|
Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R032; No. 09-1273; 3/29/11. Where §340B of the Public Health Services
Act imposes ceilings on prices drug manufacturers may charge for medications sold to specified
health care facilities, those facilities may not sue allegedly overcharging manufacturers as
third-party beneficiaries of the ceiling-price contracts, which run between the drug
manufacturers and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
|
Tolentino v. New York, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011) (per curiam)
R033; No. 09-11556; 3/29/11. Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
|
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R034; No. 09-987; 4/4/11. Because respondent taxpayers' Establishment Clause
challenge is to a tax credit--for contributions to organizations that provide scholarships
to students in private schools, including religious schools--as opposed to a governmental
expenditure, they lack Article III standing under Flast v. Cohen, 392
U. S. 83.
|
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R035; No. 09-1088; 4/4/11. In determining whether a federal habeas claim that
has been "adjudicated on the merits in State court" can be granted on the ground
that "the adjudication" "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law," 28 U. S. C.
§2254(d), review is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated
the claim on the merits; on that record, Pinholster was not entitled to federal habeas relief.
|
Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R036; No. 09-529; 4/19/11. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, allows a
federal court to hear a lawsuit for prospective relief against state officials brought by another
agency of the same State.
|
Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R037; No. 08-1438; 4/20/11. States, in accepting federal funding, do not
consent to waive their sovereign immunity to private suits for money damages under the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
|
United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R038; No. 09-846; 4/26/11. Under 28 U. S. C. §1500, two suits
are "for or in respect to" the same claim against the United States or its agents,
thus precluding Court of Federal Claims (CFC) jurisdiction, if they are based on substantially
the same operative facts, regardless of the relief sought in each suit; the substantial overlap
in operative facts between respondent's District Court and CFC suits precludes CFC
jurisdiction here.
|
AT&T; Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R039; No. 09-893; 4/27/11. California's Discover Bank
rule--which permits certain class waivers in consumer arbitration agreements
to be found unconscionable--is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
|
Montana v. Wyoming, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R040; No. 137-Orig.; 5/2/11. Because Article V(A) of the Yellowstone River
Compact incorporates the ordinary doctrine of appropriation, and because in Wyoming and Montana
that doctrine allows appropriators to improve their irrigation systems, even to the detriment
of downstream appropriators, Montana's allegation that Wyoming has allowed its upstream
users to switch to a more efficient irrigation system with less return flow fails to state a
claim for breach of the Compact under Article V(A).
|
Bobby v. Mitts, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R041; No. 10-1000; 5/2/11. Instructions requiring a capital jury to consider a mandatory death sentence before considering a sentence of life imprisonment were not, under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1), "contrary to" Beck v. Alabama,
447 U. S. 625, which concerned guilt, not penalty, proceedings.
|
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R042; No. 10-188; 5/16/11. A federal agency’s written response to a Freedom of Information Act request for records constitutes a “report” within the meaning of the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act, which generally forecloses private parties from bringing qui tam suits to recover falsely or fraudulently obtained federal payments where those suits are “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in [an] administrative . . . report” or “investigation,” 31 U. S. C. §3730(e)(4)(A).
|
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R043; No. 09-804; 5/16/11. Although §502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 did not give the District Court authority to reform CIGNA’s pension plan, relief is authorized by §502(a)(3), which allows a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary “to obtain other appropriate equitable relief” to redress violations of ERISA “or the [plan’s] terms.”
|
Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S. 1 ___ (2011)
R044; No. 09-1272; 5/16/11. The rule that exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment; assuming that an exigency existed here, there is no evidence that police officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to entering respondent’s apartment.
|